On 2021-Sep-25, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 9/25/21 12:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2021-Sep-24, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > > > But that's not the column filtering patch, right? Why would this patch > > > depend on "schema level support", but maybe the consensus is there's some > > > common part that we need to get in first? > > > > Yes, the grammar needs to be common. I posted a proposed grammar in > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109241325.eag5g6mpvoup%40alvherre.pgsql > > (this thread) which should serve both. I forgot to test the addition of > > a WHERE clause for row filtering, though, and I didn't think to look at > > adding SEQUENCE support either. > > Fine with me, but I still don't know which version of the column filtering > patch should I look at ... maybe there's none up to date, at the moment?
I don't think there is one. I think the latest is what I posted in https://postgr.es/m/202109061751.3qz5xpugwx6w@alvherre.pgsql (At least I don't see any reply from Rahila with attachments after that), but that wasn't addressing a bunch of review comments that had been made; and I suspect that Amit K has already committed a few conflicting patches after that. > > (I'm not sure what's going to be the proposal regarding FOR ALL TABLES > > IN SCHEMA for sequences. Are we going to have "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN > > SCHEMA" and "FOR ALL TABLES AND SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?) > > Should be "FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IN SCHEMA" of course ;-) hahah ... > On a more serious note, a comma-separated list of objects seems like the > best / most flexible choice, i.e. "FOR TABLES, SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"? Hmm, not sure if bison is going to like that. Maybe it's OK if SEQUENCES is a fully reserved word? But nothing beats experimentation! -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest "foo" someone someday shall type "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (5th Commandment for C programmers)
